Here is a very long investigative report by the NY State Commission of investigation on all the New York SPCCs in regards to their practices. It details the legal responsibilities and boundaries of all NY area SPCCs.http://www.sic.state.ny.us/Docs/Publ...s/pdf/spcc.PDF

Apparently, the "paece officer" status of SPCC agents is a very hot issue. It is actually quite scary as one reads though this report (from 2001)...in regards to the lack of oversight of SPCC investigative operations and how and who are chosen as agents for the SPCC in New York. This report describes some very serious problems with that system and recommend repealing the statutory provisions given to SPCCs in New York.

Apparently, the "peace officer" status was granted in the 1870's when the SPCCs were founded because there wer no formal governmental agencies to provide that function. However, over time, federal and state agencies did develop, but the SPCCs maintained their antiquated status - and lack of oversight. Essentially the 100+ year old laws were never changed to adapt to new times and investigative practices. Nor was any oversight of SPCC operation developed. Prior to the 20th century SPCCs were the primary child rescue groups (investigation, arrest, prosecution), however, they have not adpted well to the child protection model now used (social services, etc).

From the report:

Upon joining the SPCC, members are neither finger printed nor photographeed, and are not subject to any state-supervised screening process to ensure that only those persons properly suited to working with abused and neglected children are accepted into the organization. The opportunity to become a peace officer and utilize police type powers associatied with that status continues to make these organizations attractive to persons who should not and otherwise could not become legitimate law enforcement officers entrusted withthe protection and care of children.

At the time of this commission, Many SPCCs were operating as para-police organizations with, agents being badged, carrying firearms, and wearing plain clothes. Many agents were of questionable backgrounds including outstanding warrants and criminal histories. Four of the NY State SPCC's were not offering any services at all, others were being used, according to the report as "nothing more than a corporate shell designed soley to circumvent New York firearms licensing laws".

Apparently, some laws have been changed, but little change has occurred in many of the SPCCs. At the time of this report the Kings County SPCC was a target of a failed investigation. However, it seems according to the above links, they have now been forced to dissolve.

At the time of this report there were 14 SPCCs operating in NYS - 5 of which were deemed as operating as proper social service protection agencies. The NY SPCC (oldest one, Manhattan) seems to be the most legit in it's operations and, according to this report does not carry out investigations. It only offers social and protective services. However, of the 32 employees, 5 were designated as peace officers and badged (not permitted to carry firearms). The report goes on the describe the activities of all of the NY State SPCCs - both positive and negative. Some were VERY negative.

I should say that this information does not necessarily reflect on Mr. Hoenig. It is only an offshoot of the discussion which arose on SPCC. In fact, if Mr. Hoenig does work with the SPCC, this info confirms that SPCC members can be classified as agents. In fact, there are SPCCs doing great work as well, so this is not an indictment of Hoenig. Only a description of the problems with the organization for which he works/has worked.

Jules please STFU about being tested. There are many here, myself included, who are more than capable of meeting you and doing damage. However that is not the issue at hand here. The issue here is about YOUR claims and how FULL OF **** they are. You haven't done anything yet to prove them. If you are not going to do that then you will continue to be rediculed. Don't like it? TOUGH. But here we hate BS artist.

Agreed. His Obit stated "Chief" and Hoenig referred to him as "Chief of Police". And, based on everything I have (and posted here) read on the SPCC, there is no Police connection with the societies at all...at least not in NYS. In fact, it is the misrepresentation as police that is a major problem with many SPCCs.

Of course there is no indication that Kirk was in any way a part of that activity. And clearly, he was titled Chief, not Chief of Police...based on his Obit.

So, Mr. Kirk, rest in peace, is definately confirmed as the chief of the Hawaii SPCC. That is no longer an issue. Currently, I would like to address some of the other, more general issues.

First: The throwdown. Mr. Hoenig, a "throwdown" is an organized, refereed fight in a controlled enviorment, not someone waltzing in to your place of work to be beaten up. In addition, we never doubted your fighting skills, only that you claim very high ranks in a broad range of martial arts.

Second: I would like to respond to one of your comments.

Originally Posted by knifehand1

Additionally, just out of my curiousity....who are you (as a group), and what makes you think that you have the right, let alone the credentials to "fact check" ANYONES background ???

I've tried my best to be polite, and please excuse me for doing this, but...

Oh, ****! I forgot! I need to get my fact-checking license renewed! I've gotta head down to the DWGFAR (the Department of Who Gets their First Ammendment Rights)! While I'm at it, I'll also want to renew my newspaper reading permit.

Third: We cannot be satisfied by anything you say unless you can prove it. If you have a diploma, scan it and upload the picture. If you say you've trained under somebody, have them confirm your claims in such a way that it can be proven real (ie a video). As we continue to work with you, your claims are becoming more and more believable, but you must understand that if we took every single person by their word then we would hardly have a mission.

Fourth: To the above post, if you call someone "chief of police" instead of "chief," it's not an outright lie. What does the "chief" do for the SPCC? What does the "chief of police" do for the SPCC? I'm sure if you asked Mr. Hoenig what the "chief of police" did, you would get the exact same description as if you asked him what the "chief" did. The difference is small enough so that it can not be called lying or BS. It's certainly not completely accurate. It's like that guy in The Office, Dwight Schrute, who's the "Assistant to the Regional Manager" but he calls himself "Assistant Regional Manager." It's not a lie, it's just a way of phrasing things to make it sound better. And no, that's not BS. If it was, there would not be a single legit MA school in this country.

I am still unsatisfied about the whole "Republic of Central Africa" thing. To suggest that the US Department of State is an unreliable source for foreign heads of state visits seems far fetched, and it is still unconfirmed which country "Republic of Central Africa" actually refers to sine it isn't the official or popular English-language name of any country at all it seems.

It's like that guy in The Office, Dwight Schrute, who's the "Assistant to the Regional Manager" but he calls himself "Assistant Regional Manager." It's not a lie, it's just a way of phrasing things to make it sound better. And no, that's not BS. If it was, there would not be a single legit MA school in this country.

I disagree and I'm sure others here would to; that's usually misleading advertising and/or ego/reputation padding which is exploitative of students and other duped third parties. But that's for a different thread.

Agreed. His Obit stated "Chief" and Hoenig referred to him as "Chief of Police". And, based on everything I have (and posted here) read on the SPCC, there is no Police connection with the societies at all...at least not in NYS. In fact, it is the misrepresentation as police that is a major problem with many SPCCs.

Of course there is no indication that Kirk was in any way a part of that activity. And clearly, he was titled Chief, not Chief of Police...based on his Obit.

Not my implication at all. I have no information except the obit concerning Kirk. Heading an org. like that, makes him an upstanding person in my book.

It is the "semantics" that Hoening is hiding behind that I'm drawing attention to.

I would think an obit, written by family, wouldn't leave out Chief of Police. Especially, when they bring up the original title.

I'd believe the obit before I believed any "words" coming from "The Sandman."

Hugo Chavez is not on that list. He is a Head of State. In September 2006, there was a U.N. Summit of Heads of State. You might remember Hugo Chavez calling President Bush "the devil?" Seeing as Hugo Chaves isn't mentioned in that list, and CAR is a UN member state, it is quite possible that the PM or president of CAR would have also been there. In face, it is unlikely that the PM or president of CAR wouldn't be there.

Fourth: To the above post, if you call someone "chief of police" instead of "chief," it's not an outright lie. What does the "chief" do for the SPCC? What does the "chief of police" do for the SPCC? I'm sure if you asked Mr. Hoenig what the "chief of police" did, you would get the exact same description as if you asked him what the "chief" did. The difference is small enough so that it can not be called lying or BS. It's certainly not completely accurate. It's like that guy in The Office, Dwight Schrute, who's the "Assistant to the Regional Manager" but he calls himself "Assistant Regional Manager." It's not a lie, it's just a way of phrasing things to make it sound better. And no, that's not BS. If it was, there would not be a single legit MA school in this country.

Disagree wholeheartedly. It would be a lie. It doesn't matter what the Chief of police does for the SPCC. Kirk isn't, according to the obit, the Chief of Police he is Chief of the SPCC.

It doesn't matter if they have the same duties.

Being president of a company doesn't entitle you to say you are President of the United states. Even if we sat down an listed all the things in common.